Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

Yes, unnamed sources, but I'm guessing it doesn't get refuted by the tiny hothead McCain. More on McCain's temper in this Paul Kane WaPopiece:

Sensing the increasing likelihood that he will be the nominee, GOP senators who have publicly fought with him are emphasizing his war-hero background and playing down past confrontations.

"I forgive him for whatever disagreements he has had with me. We can disagree on things, but I have great admiration for him," said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee who has often argued with McCain over government spending.

But others have outright rejected the idea of a McCain nomination and presidency, warning that his tirades suggest a temperament unfit for the Oval Office.

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), also a senior member of the Appropriations panel, told the Boston Globe recently. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

A former colleague says McCain's abrasive nature would, at minimum, make his relations with Republicans on Capitol Hill uneasy if he were to become president. McCain could find himself the victim of Republicans who will not go the extra mile for him on legislative issues because of past grievances.

"John was very rough in the sandbox," said former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who is outspoken in his opposition to McCain's candidacy. "Everybody has a McCain story. If you work in the Senate for a while, you have a McCain story. . . .He hasn't built up a lot of goodwill."

And this, from the Kane piece, speaks to how lame the choices are:

"You'll have more Democrats running away from Hillary Clinton than you'll have Republicans running away from our nominee," he said.

As I don't want my country to lose a war against Islamo-fascists that wish to drag us back to the 8th century, the Republicans could run a turd for president and I'd "hold my nose" and vote for it.

What other recourse do I have? The defeatism and resulting chaos offered by Obama and Hillary? I simply don't hate myself or my country enough to vote for either of them.

Tom
at April 10, 2008 5:11 AM

At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day.

What a respectful way to treat the lady you spend your life with, senator...

I hope he doesn't pull that sort of shit on her at the end of every long day. If she lets him get away with that, she either must love him very much, or her self-esteem is very low. (My money is on self-esteem.)

If I'd ever treat my girlfriend that way, I would hate myself for it one second later. At least for a couple of years.

Rainer
at April 10, 2008 5:13 AM

That's unfortunately an all-too-typical example of the kind of personality found in and around the White House and Capitol. I have a somewhat distant relative who was in the presidential Secret Service detail. He couldn't and didn't say much, but one nonetheless got impressions. Frankly, he is just such a type himself.

Kindly put, pure "type A" personalities. People so convinced of their own self-importance and central place in the world, that other people are only cardboard cutouts to them.

If McCain is the type to have said that, he will have seen little or no reason to apologize. And the kind of woman who would marry such a person, well, that's the kind of life she signed up for.

bradley13
at April 10, 2008 6:10 AM

Rainer - you are assuming the allegations are true. What if they aren't? We all know that the media would, never, ever, ever, try to influence an election.....(Dan Rather...cough....Dan Rather....)

Tom
at April 10, 2008 6:27 AM

I find it very hard to believe that an heiress who has no need of any man (even one with political power) would tolerate being called a 'cunt' at all, much less in front of colleagues.

At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day.

Gotta tell ya, if any man ever said that to me, I'd slap his face and kick his ass to the curb. Immediately. There is simply no excuse for that kind of nastiness, I don't care who you are.

Amy - all that demeanor aside, would you really prefer Hillary or Obama, or (shudder) Gore?

I mean, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here as it is. But McCain has one thing going for him - Chavez doesn't want me to vote for him. I was all set to stay home on election day until Hugo opened his fat fascist mouth.

Now I somehow feel obligated to vote for the man who's had his thumb in my eye for the past 15 years, just to put my thumb in Chavez' eye.

Amy - because McCain has a reputation for being a hot head does not mean that he said those horrible things to his wife.

Tom
at April 10, 2008 8:23 AM

I was all set to stay home on election day until Hugo opened his fat fascist mouth.

People give that two-bit tyrant Chavez far too much due. I think Juan Carlos' approach to him was the correct one: "¡Por qué no te callas!"

I love the fact that the piece chooses that crook Ted Stevens for its approving quotation (the guy's pretty corrupt, even by Alaskan political standards).

At this point, I'm no great fan of any of the candidates. McCain troubles me because he has so little support among the Christian Conservative movement and the corporate Republican types that I think he will have to make overt promises to go along with their priorities on the economy and judges; if I were more convinced he would actually be the Maverick of lore and shaft those groups for a more moderate approach, I be more inclined to vote for him.

justin case
at April 10, 2008 8:32 AM

First of all, let me say I have tremendous respect for John McCain's refusal to go home early in Vietnam. He updheld the finest traditions of honor and duty of the US Navy.

That said, being president is about more than being honorable. It's about being the chief executive of the country. That position includes having a vision while being a manager, a leader, an advocate, a negotiator, a diplomat, a counselor, and sometimes the toughest SOB this side of the Negev. A president can get approval from Congress all he wants, but in the end, it's on him and he's taking ALL the blame if it goes wrong. That's a pretty tough set of responsibilities to handle - especially if you've never done it before.

One reason I look for high level executive experience in candidates for the presidency is the fact that as an executive you have to learn to handle all those roles if you want to succeed. You have to learn to influence others to get them on your side, make tough decisions and get people to carry them out, lead a team, and build a rapport - all while knowing that when the smelly brown stuff hits the whirling cantilevered surface it's all comin' back on you. You have to know how to sit alone in the office while everyone else plays CYA by blaming you - and not go nuts because of it.

Not one of the candidates in this election has ever sat in that chair. McCain highest level of executive authority was being a squadron leader (middle management), Hillary's was being a law partner (committee member), and Obama's was being a community development advocate (independent operator).

As long as we nominate empty personalities instead of experience, we'll have these issues. We have at least two candidates with temper issues (McCain and Clinton), three candidates with lack-of-experience issues, and not one candidate with a real vision.

I'll most likely vote for McCain since he's the only candidate who has made a career of being serious about reducing pork barrel spending. But I'll be on pins and needles for the next four years.

Conan the Grammarian
at April 10, 2008 9:15 AM

Justin - Even if he promises to advance those miniscule group's agendas, there's no reason to believe he'll deliver.

I suspect he can ignore the so-called "christian conservative movement" (which is none of the above, by the way). Who else they gonna vote for? You think that the Evangelicals are gonna vote for a woman or a negro?

This election is delicious for one reason, and one alone. All the racist, sexist, Democrat unionists are going to short-circuit because how can they vote for a member of a group that they blame for all their problems?

He's a socialist, and he is spreading his poison throughout South America. Chavez and the Democrat party are both in the tank for FALN, which is why the Democrats are all kissing Chavez' ass, and why they are also opposed to the Columbia trade agreement.

A vote against Chavez is a vote against Socialism. And you already know my opinion on Socialism.

What does it say about us that (as I write this) the topic involving who will be the next president of the United States has 15 comments and the one about boob job has over 40?

At least we have our priorities in order.

Conan the Grammarian
at April 10, 2008 9:19 AM

Cindy McCain is a beautiful lady - I hope I can look that good someday.

I'm voting for whoever the Libertarian party sticks in front of me.

Pirate Jo
at April 10, 2008 9:24 AM

Pirate Jo - be careful what you commit to there. There's a good chance that you'll either get an isolationist or a truther. Granted, they've got no chance of winning, so voting merely as a protest doesn't put you in danger of supporting something truly odious, but I don't know if I could pull the lever for a truther.

Bob Barr has formed an exploratory committee for pursuing the Libertarian nomination. I like Barr about a hundred times more than I do any of these boobs. If he's on the ticket, He'll get my vote.

Oh, and Conan, were still talking boobs here too.

Bikerken
at April 10, 2008 10:48 AM

> That position includes having a
> vision while being a manager, a
> leader, an advocate, a negotiator,
> a diplomat, a counselor, and
> sometimes the toughest SOB this
> side of the Negev.

That's a little overwrought. Your babysitter sometimes needs to be all those things, too.

I particularly resent "leadership" from politicians, and much prefer "service". Presumably you're a citizen of the United States... But as you fell into a rote, cliché recitation of presidential responsibilities, that didn't even make your list.

That's amazing to me.

I think McCain's probably a whackjob, but he's too old and people are too pissed off at the White House for him to get us into real trouble.

And I'd probably vote for him if Condi was his running mate... (Even if Condi was in the Veep slot)

Well, my babysitter might need vision to keep me in sight, but she doesn't create a mission statement and conceptualize a forward-looking operational strategy for me.

And while we're all happy if when we get home at night the kids are tucked in, the homework's done, and the house didn't burn down; we expect and need a little bit more foresight and planning ability from our president.

Conan the Grammarian
at April 10, 2008 11:58 AM

Here's to more hotheads not just taking the cell phone abusers!

As for this: ...a fun, freewheeling hour of conversation between Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry. Can't, can you?

Or imagine something a lot less painful, like pulling all your toenails out with a pliers and arranging them into a collage.

Amen. No candidate who runs on a claim of "leadership" will ever get my whole-hearted support. What the presidency requires is a person with a clear sense of, and respect for, the balance of powers built into the constitution. Someone committed to administering the will of the people as expressed in the laws passed by their representatives in Congress. Someone willing to actually seek advice from the Senate in making judicial appointments, not just demand their consent.

Above all, someone who does not promise to deliver to the people the kinds of things--family values, economic prosperity, cultural and social ideals, and so on--that depend on forces entirely outside the control of the president.

We got rid of the whole royal pooh-bah foolishness in 1776. Yet presidential candidates keep talking as if they're running for king.

As an aside, I have no problem voting for a third party the way some people do. You always hear, "But they'll never win," like there's some kind of prize you get for voting for the winning candidate. Most people think the government can solve their problems, which is why we keep getting more of the same crap Republocrats to choose from, and at least I can say that it's not my fault.

Pirate Jo
at April 10, 2008 2:20 PM

And you already know my opinion on Socialism.

If I recall correctly, you are less than fond.

Here's to more hotheads not just taking the cell phone abusers!

I asked a woman on the train the other day, "Do you have any idea of how loud you are being?" Her stunned response suggested not, but she quieted down a bunch. I got some whispered thanks from people around me. Amy, I hope your direct approach to noisy cell phone talkers catches on; cell phones are here to stay, and we all need to step up when it comes to enforcing decent etiquette.

Oh, by "truther" do you mean the conspiracy wingnuts who think the government secretly planned 9/11? If that's what you mean, I haven't seen that from any Libertarians. Ron Paul wanted to end the war, but for reasons I agree with. He was never saying the U.S. planned 9/11.

Pirate Jo
at April 10, 2008 2:30 PM

I can respect McCain's comment, not defending it. If you put it in perspective, meaning that if it was him or any male making an overtly negative comment about a woman's appearence, it would evoke a similar reaction. Even polite people will be thinking the same thing while saying some bullsh!t, under their breath, with a smile. Just because a public figure said it- can't we get past that yet? Of course (if the comments are true) he could have said it better. Given the general offensiveness that cunt holds, I would imagine he didn't use it lightly though. If someone makes a crappy off-hand remark like that or anyone pointing out someone else's flaws should be expecting a little something in return for their unwelcomed observations!

kbling
at April 10, 2008 2:38 PM

Someone committed to administering the will of the people as expressed in the laws passed by their representatives in Congress. Someone willing to actually seek advice from the Senate in making judicial appointments, not just demand their consent.

If you're going to say the laws passed by Congress are an expression of the will of the people, you've lost me. I wasn't aware that the people had expressed a will to have a bridge built in Alaska (2007), that airline flights be made more "kid friendly" (2007), or that members of Congress be able to personally peruse our tax returns (2005). I could go on...and on. The only will that Congress is an expression of is the will of each Congressman to be re-elected.

In addition, your statement seems to say that you regard the presidency as beholden to or reporting to Congress (as if the US were some sort of European parliamentary democracy). The executive branch of the US government is an separate and equal branch of the government.

If it was a president you like and a Congress you don't, would you feel the same way?

The founding fathers made no secret of their desire to avoid having a king or a authoritarian leader in charge. But they had also studied the Glorious Revolution and didn't want the Long Parliament as our governing model either.

Also, I'm not Frank Burns - although I have taken myself out back for a beating after re-reading the sentence that inspired that comment. A chief executive's job is a tough one and requires constant juggling of priorities. Not everyone is up to the task. I don't have a lot of confidence that any of the three main candidates we're being offered are up to the job.

Yes, we do want leadership from a president. But if someone has to constantly tell you they're a leader, they're usually not.

Conan the Grammarian
at April 10, 2008 3:19 PM

> Yes, we do want leadership from
> a president.

Says you. I want those fuckers to do what they're told, with humility and thrift.

On the way into work today I was listening to Dobbs on the radio. He's a pompous ass, but he was noting the China is correctly described as "Communist China", which is a locution nobody bothers with anymore. The guest on the show (name unknown) was saying that because media are tightly controlled, nobody knows how much of a problem Islam is within the world's largest country. Might be big, might not.

The problem with China is that it's run like a family business. It's *tribal*.

I hate when people think their nations (even the United States) get their righteousness from central figures. That's the essence of childishness, presuming that Dad will tell you how it's supposed to go.

Crid
at April 10, 2008 3:52 PM

Says you. I want those fuckers to do what they're told, with humility and thrift.

But...told by whom? ...'cause it ain't gonna be you and me tellin' them what to do.

I hate when people think their nations (even the United States) get their righteousness from central figures. That's the essence of childishness, presuming that Dad will tell you how it's supposed to go.

I said leadership, not dictatorship. They're far from the same thing. I don't want a central authority figure. In fact, I agree with Jefferson in "that government which governs best, governs least."

Conan the Grammarian
at April 10, 2008 4:22 PM

I agree with both Crid and Conan. Time for another drink.

Pirate Jo
at April 10, 2008 4:26 PM

What, and Hillary's not a hot head? Give me a break. And oh, by the way - Obama has a temper too - just not covered much in the media (yet). Fits of temper go with the territory of leadership at high levels, at least to a certain extent. Not many figures of the stature we're discussing are wholly free of them.

Dennis
at April 10, 2008 5:28 PM

> 'cause it ain't gonna be you
> and me tellin' them what to do.

Bogus cynicism of the Frank Burns variety... It just doesn't makes sense. You've swung from the importance of righteous leadership to a sinister world ruled by powerful dark and subterranean forces who make things happen regardless of our interests. If so, then what difference does it make who we vote for? If your going to be such a tortured fatalist, you should be so eager for the bastards to show you the way.

I think voting for good people is important, as is thinking clearly about what we expect from them, and holding them accountable when they let us down. If you disagree, which of us is more naive?

Crid
at April 10, 2008 5:31 PM

Shouldn't. SHouldn't be so eager.

I want Gregg to install a software module that publishes what I mean, not what I type

Crid
at April 10, 2008 5:33 PM

"I think voting for good people is important, as is thinking clearly about what we expect from them, and holding them accountable when they let us down."

Do you think most people care about that?

Pirate Jo
at April 10, 2008 6:02 PM

Well, many Americans have better things to worry about, if that's what you mean.

If you listen to NPR and other mainstream media all day, you'll get the idea that human life only happens in Washington. But the main reason they focus so much attention on Washington is that it's convenient and financial feasable to compose a saleable product there. Real life happens elsewhere.

Crid
at April 10, 2008 6:06 PM

If I recall correctly, you are less than fond.
My dear Mr. Case, you have a gift for understatement.

gog - I suspect you don't know what a "truther" is. For a "truther", the actual truth is a fabrication meant to obscure the real and sinister motives underpinning the major events of our time.

To the truther, the answer to who caused 9/11 is George Bush, either by direct action or intentional neglect. To the truther, literally everything positive that has happened in the war on terror has been planned to counteract the impact of something back home that is bad for Republicans. They went so far as to believe that some terrorist attack in England was timed to impact the election of a senator from Connecticut.

The Truther is most easily spotted by their mating call: "I question the timing".

And Ron Paul, while never coming right out and parroting the truther line, has appeared several times on Alex Jones' radio program, and has never refused the support of truthers. Other prominent non-establishment, Libertarian-leaning politicians have recently jumped on the truther bandwagon as well.

And I believe him. Come on, this incident happened in 1992, three journalists witnessed it and it didn't come out until now? Bush didn't use it when running against him? Absolutely no way, Jose.

I'll believe he has a temper. But like most of the more extreme allegations about the various candidates, I think this one smells like pure, unmitigated bullshit.

Gail
at April 10, 2008 10:41 PM

Like, exactly WHY would those three reporters keep this sensational, article-selling piece of news to themselves for 16 years, and speak out only now, and anonymously, to this biographer? WHY? It doesn't make the tiniest bit of sense. Don't journalists generally report the news, rather than hide it? The dude was running for Senate at the time. This is his second bid for president. This just isn't the kind of public remark that would remain under a bush (or a Bush, har dee har) while all that happened. Nuh uh, no way.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/10/little_mr_hothe.html#comment-1539385">comment from Gail

Gail, did you say that when they Swift-boated John Kerry? I mean, they didn't make those comments when he won his medals, only much later.

Here's my problem with people who are die-hard anything -- Republicans or Democrats. (And for the record, I'm neither: I'm a fiscal conservative who's largely libertarian; just not about the borders, because as I believe Milton Friedman saod, you can't have open borders in a welfare state.) Anyway, it's that people will fall on their sword for their cause, and be intellectually dishonest. There are reasons I greatly dislike the Dems and reasons I greatly dislike the Republicans, and reasons I find each of the three candidates running reprehensible in their own special ways. These ways should be discussed. Personally, I'd like to see Newt Gingrich run for president. There are reasons I don't like him either, but he's the best candidate for the job I can see. (Without putting on any special Republican party or Democratic party glasses.)

PS Matt Welch has an entire chapter in his book on McCain about what an angry asshole the guy is, entitled "Anger Management." And he quotes senators and Republican party officials, at least one of whom says he's unfit to be president with his temper. Were they all making it up, too?

Amy - The Kerry medals-over-the-wall and the purple heart stuff was used against him may other times as well, as I recall. He seemed to win election because of his dishonesty (the whole Winter Soldier thing).

I think John McCains relationship with the republican party is like an arraigned marriage. Everyone is posing real nice for the photos but he ain't getting none on his wedding night.

Bikerken
at April 11, 2008 5:46 AM

Brian, I agree the truthers are a bunch of ding-a-lings, but I also see them as largely irrelevant. My big issues are 1) reduce federal government spending, 2) reduce federal government size, 3) eliminate federal government agencies, 4) eliminate federal government involvement in education, 5) eliminate federal government involvement in entitlement programs, 6) restore the value of our currency by backing it with assets, and 7) get out of Iraq.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on every issue, but I agree with him on my top seven. I also want to end the war on drugs and I'm pro-choice. But let's first deal with the issues that have the potential to sink this country's economy and our standard of living.

The truthers may have a bunch of half-baked, crackpot ideas, but at least they have a healthy distrust of government. I'd rather have that attitude than the one most people seem to have, which is that "the government must do something" about every problem they perceive. The truthers can sit in their basements wearing tinfoil hats all they want, as long as they aren't asking me to give up my money or freedom to accommodate them.

Pirate Jo
at April 11, 2008 6:23 AM

"Gail, did you say that when they Swift-boated John Kerry? I mean, they didn't make those comments when he won his medals, only much later"

Yes, Amy, I absolutely did and do -- I think the Swift Boaters were lying shitheads. I also said it when they said Obama was a Muslim (clearly absurd and ridiculous), and when some people said Hillary was merely "the wifey" with no accomplishments of her own. I think all of those allegations are false, and obviously so.

There are PLENTY of reasons not to like any of these candidates -- real, verifiable reasons, based on both character and the stances they take on issues.

Unfortunately, though, there has been an increasing tendency for certain members of the media and the political parties to go beyond the facts and just make shit up, and the American public is right out there ready to swallow it. Once it's out there, it's hard to get kill, no matter how false it is. Even if you can show DNA fucking evidence that it's false, a lot of people will still believe. That's why a scary number of people in our country still think there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

I hate that crap, whether it's being said about one of the rare candidates I like or one of the many candidates I hate. I'd like to abolish political parties and primaries altogether and just have candidates run against each other on the issues. I think we'd up with better, more substantive candidates, and some of this purely partisan bullshit would be eliminated.

Me, I take everything I read and hear with an industrial-sized vat of salt. In this instance, it's he says/she says -- without video, we can't prove it happened, but we also can't prove it didn't (which is what is so fucking dangerous about an allegation like this). Without evidence on either side, I form my belief on common sense -- there's no way not one but THREE journalists would shut up about this and not be screaming it on the streetcorner, if it really happened.

Gail
at April 11, 2008 7:35 AM

"And he quotes senators and Republican party officials, at least one of whom says he's unfit to be president with his temper. Were they all making it up, too?"

Amy -- I already said that I do believe McCain had temper issues. I do think there is evidence of that (whether it rises to the level of making him unfit for office is something I'm still weighing). But there are temper issues, and then there is calling your wife a cunt in public because she plays with your hair. Not quite the same thing.

You are mistaken in assuming, as you apparently do, that I'm a McCain groupie. For the record, I'm a registered Democrat, but I'm not an anything groupie, particularly in this election. I have no ax to grind. (I don't think the same can be said about this Schector character.) I just hate bullshit, and I think this cunt anecdote reeks of it.

By the way -- the fact that conservative Republicans don't like McCain proves NOTHING to me. They don't like him primarily because they think he's not a conservative republican and that he's too liberal, and therefore they don't trust him. They've spent a lot of time smearing him over the years so that more conservative folks would win. It just didn't work this time around.

Gail
at April 11, 2008 7:46 AM

Ooops -- sorry -- paynoattention is me. That's the name of a blog I have, and I accidentally typed it into the name box. I need some coffee, or next thing you know I'll be typing in my bank card password.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/10/little_mr_hothe.html#comment-1539436">comment from Gail

Ooops -- sorry -- paynoattention is me. That's the name of a blog I have, and I accidentally typed it into the name box. I need some coffee, or next thing you know I'll be typing in my bank card password

Fixed it. So you're now "Gail." Bank cards and passwords may be sent to 171 Pier Ave...

Brian, I agree the truthers are a bunch of ding-a-lings, but I also see them as largely irrelevant.

They aren't irrelevant, they're influencing policymakers on the left.

My big issues are 1) reduce federal government spending,

A president won't do that. Best he can do is veto everything, and if he does that long enough Congress will go around him. This becomes easier when the President is not of one of the two major parties, and has no party loyalty to demand.

2) reduce federal government size,

Not going to happen until a majority of people no longer expect things from government.

3) eliminate federal government agencies,

Won't happen until you get rid of AFSCME.

4) eliminate federal government involvement in education,

Won't happen until you get rid of the NEA.

5) eliminate federal government involvement in entitlement programs,

See #2 above.

6) restore the value of our currency by backing it with assets,

This is where you, Ron Paul, and all the other 'goldbugs' go right off the rails. Currency is fungible. A currency based on "assets" is no less arbitrary than any other fiat currency. You honestly thing there'd be no inflation if the currency was tied to some lump of metal in a vault? Think that government wouldn't engage in deficit spending? Bullshit. Gold is as meaningless as bits in a computer for determining the value of a thing. You want to restore the "value" of our currency? Stop buying shit made in China.

and 7) get out of Iraq.

Getting out of the middle east before we have established a durable free state where the rights of the individual are respected would be a tremendous blunder. We have got to force the middle east into the modern era and get them beyond tribalism. This is not a point of debate, it is an absolute necessity if the modern world is to survive at all. We fail in Iraq, western civilization is in jeopardy.

It just doesn't makes sense. You've swung from the importance of righteous leadership to a sinister world ruled by powerful dark and subterranean forces who make things happen regardless of our interests.

No, I've said a president should provide leadership, not dictatorship. I never said anything in favor of righteous leadership. I don't even know what righteous leadership is...except to think that you've set up a straw man to knock down the idea that a president should show any leadership.

I think voting for good people is important, as is thinking clearly about what we expect from them, and holding them accountable when they let us down. If you disagree, which of us is more naive?

I believe we're in agreement here. We've both said the same thing in regard to electing good people and holding them accountable for their actions.

Conan the Grammarian
at April 11, 2008 9:10 AM

If we're in agreement, stop saying silly things!

Crid
at April 11, 2008 9:14 AM

Well, Brian, I'm not advocating a gold standard, I said asset-backed. A government cannot keep simply printing more money when it runs out of money to spend and expect a currency to retain its value.

I'd love to see the Middle East get into the modern era, too, but don't think there is any effective way to "force" them. The war in Iraq certainly isn't going to accomplish that, and anyway we Simply. Cannot. Afford. It.

As for the other basic reductions in government I wish would happen, yes, I realize none of them are going to happen any time soon. That's kind of the point I was trying to make to Crid. Most people just don't care. They expect the government to solve their problems and they will vote for whichever lying creep promises to solve the most of them.

Very few people seem to see government as a primary *source* of our problems, so just as fast as the government can screw something up, people vote for more government to fix things. I'm used to the people I vote for never winning, because I see things differently than the majority.

Pirate Jo
at April 11, 2008 9:22 AM

"Silly things?"

No need to be hostile, Crid.

My argument is that a president has to have the ability to exercise independent judgement, not simply "do what he is told." And my position is that having some experience at exercising independent judgement before one becomes president is invaluable...and something desireable in a candidate.

If you think that's "silly," then fine. You're entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to disagree.

But name-calling is not debating.

Conan the Grammarian
at April 11, 2008 9:31 AM

"gog - I suspect you don't know what a "truther" is."

The label "truther" is a disparagement that dittoheads throw around in lieu of an argument, as in, "Those truthers don't realize how easy it is to defeat a trillion dollar defense system with a razor blade!".

Note that anyone who believes the government version is, by definition, a conspiracy theorist. In that case, they're just believing the government's conspiracy theory instead of believing the ravings of Jimmy Joe Tinfoilhat from Mom's Basement, Indiana.

Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at April 11, 2008 9:56 AM

Gog - You're either mad, stupid, or deliberately pulling my leg.

The label "truther" is explicitly and exclusively attached to those who believe that the U.S. government is lying about 9/11. The name was given to them based upon one of the first websites they started "911truth.org".

And if memory serves, they attached the name to themselves.

Note that anyone who believes the government version is, by definition, a conspiracy theorist. In that case, they're just believing the government's conspiracy theory instead of believing the ravings of Jimmy Joe Tinfoilhat from Mom's Basement, Indiana.

This may, in fact, be one of the stupidest things I've ever read. The government does not have a "theory" of a conspiracy, they have an actual conspiracy, backed up by evidence.

Anyone who does not believe that the twin towers came down as a result of two planes hitting them is not worthy of my time. Truthers ought to get a basic understanding of physics and materials science before they humiliate themselves further. I'll simply say that science supports the "official" version of events, and there is no science in the known universe that supports the truthers.

Well, Brian, I'm not advocating a gold standard, I said asset-backed. A government cannot keep simply printing more money when it runs out of money to spend and expect a currency to retain its value.

The government will simply revalue the currency to achieve the same result, or they will sell debt instruments just as they always have. The solution is not to hobble the entire economy by fixing the upper bounds of value. The solution is to circulate people through congress fast enough that they never have time to develop networks of friends to do favors for, and to take away the incentive to buy votes, since they won't be running for re-election anyway.

I'd love to see the Middle East get into the modern era, too, but don't think there is any effective way to "force" them. The war in Iraq certainly isn't going to accomplish that, and anyway we Simply. Cannot. Afford. It.

First, I disagree with your assertion that changing Iraq won't cause changes in the region. We are already seeing it. Iran is experiencing more and larger anti-government protests than ever. I attribute that in part to the fact that the world media is paying attention to that region due to our presence there, and in part to the fact that the long-oppressed people of Iran want to be a part of what Iraq promises to become. Which would explain why Iran is fighting us so hard in Iraq -- we're a threat to the order of things in Iran by our mere presence.

Second, we can't afford not to. Could we afford another 9/11? How about one every 10-20 years? The next attack is certain to be larger than 9/11, because they have always escalated. So do a comparative analysis -- what is the cost of another attack on a major population center in the US versus what we've spent on Iraq and Afghanistan?

It's the classic "pay me now or pay me later" scenario. We can't afford to tread water forever.

Thanks Brian, I just won lunch. I bet you'd respond per usual in less than a half hour.

Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at April 11, 2008 10:28 AM

> name-calling is not debating.

But you make it so easy. Your description of the office of the president sounds like a promo for an early-70's TV series, an hourlong drama with a masculine hero. He's gotta be bold! He's gotta be daring! He moves through a world of treacherous nuance! Nothing about appointments or vetoes....

I don't much care whether a president uses judgment derived from his own transfabulous calculations or from briefings by his team. He's the one who'll be held accountable.

> No need to be hostile

Hostility is often usefully propulsive. Stupidity is just corrosive. And annoying.

Crid
at April 11, 2008 10:36 AM

I'll often admit to being hostile. In fact, I did when the idiots at the looping company down the block took out a restraining order on me after I called their office manager, Katherine Morgan, a cunt (for taking residentially-zoned parking and leaving their numerous gated spaces unparked lest Tom Arnold showed up with an entourage).

The office manager complained to the judge, who wasn't finding me terribly fright-provoking, that I was "hostile and unpredictable."

I almost said, "Why thank you!" Instead, I think I said something like, "Well, yes, I am both of those things, but I am not violent."

But you make it so easy. Your description of the office of the president sounds like a promo for an early-70's TV series, an hourlong drama with a masculine hero. He's gotta be bold! He's gotta be daring! He moves through a world of treacherous nuance! Nothing about appointments or vetoes....

And your simple-minded description makes the president sound like nothing more than a bureaucrat. Perhaps Alice from the DMV should be the next president. She can do whatever she's told to do and appoint whomever "the will of the people" tell her to appoint. That'll work out real well.

When people follow your trivial advice and elect a "feel good" president instead of someone with at least a modicum of applicable experience, they usually get someone not up to the job.

BTW, I never said "bold or daring," you twit. I said the president (he or she) has to be able to make decisions and stand by them even when the decision is unpopular, to use diplomacy and negotiation skills to build a consensus, to use independent judgement, and to combine leadership and management skills to enact an agenda. In case you haven't noticed, the president does a little more than appointments and vetoes.

And, yes, even appointments and vetoes require the exercise of some judgement.

If you analyze what we're both saying, I think you'll find we agree more than we disagree. But you'd rather shoot your mouth off to show the world how smart and clever you are.

Well, you're right about one thing, Crid, stupidity is corrosive and annoying. And you've annoyed me right out of here.

Conan the Grammarian
at April 11, 2008 11:33 AM

No! Don't leave! Without your insights, we're doomed!

Come back!

Crid
at April 11, 2008 11:47 AM

*Gog - You're either mad, stupid, or deliberately pulling my leg.*

Thanks Brian, I just won lunch. I bet you'd respond per usual in less than a half hour.

So you admit to deliberately pulling my leg to earn lunch? Give me the phone number of the person you made the bet with. I'd like to discuss a civil fraud motion with them.

Word. Unity and leadership are two things that people gab about too much. And if anyone ever gave us any of either of them, we'd be plenty miserable. That's why Obama's call for a "more perfect union" was so clever... He didn't actually say a closer one, though of course that's what most people probably took him to mean. It's sounds cuddly instead of oppressive.

But arguing against unity is like complaining about motherhood... It just isn't done. And so you get lip-flappingly weird chatter like Conan's call for a dynamic, talented leader who's going to ignore our needs anyway.

Crid
at April 11, 2008 2:32 PM

What does it say about us that (as I write this) the topic involving who will be the next president of the United States has 15 comments and the one about boob job has over 40?

It means you're on the Internet, rookie. But then, you think it's "hostility" when someone points out you're saying silly things...

And consensus is sometimes achieved by someone negotiating or arguing to bring others round to his or her point of view. That person is sometimes referred to as a being a leader or as having shown leadership.

No. I wrote Crid was being hostile and name-calling instead of debating when he engaged in reducto ad absurdum to say I wanted Thomas Magnum as president.

I simply said I prefer candidates for president to have experience in doing the types of things a president does. I don't think any of the three main candidates at this point have that type of experience and I'm a bit dismayed at the choices we've been given.

That's not to say that having this type of experience is the only thing we should look for when picking a president. We've had some pretty good presidents who had little or no executive experience before becoming president. And some bad ones who had plenty of it.

But if it's silly to say I want a president who doesn't take a poll to determine the "will of the people" every morning before getting out of bed, then I'll own to being silly.